MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Utility of Ki67 immunostaining in the grading of pineal parenchymal tumours: a multicentre study

2011· article· en· W1591450765 on OpenAlexaff
M. Fèvre‐Montange, Alexandre Vasiljevic, Didier Frappaz, Jacques Champier, Alexandru Szathmári, Marie‐Hélène Lorton, F. Chapon, A. Coulon, Isabelle Quintin Roué, Marie Bernadette Delisle, Dominique Figarella‐Branger, A. Laquérrière, Catherine Miquel, Jean‐François Michiels, Michel Péoc’h, M. Polivka, F. Fauchon, Anne Jouvet

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropathology and Applied Neurobiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)ImmunostainingMedicinePathologyNeuropathologyRetrospective cohort studyImmunohistochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M. Fèvre‐Montange, A. Vasiljevic, D. Frappaz, J. Champier, A. Szathmari, M.‐H. Aubriot Lorton, F. Chapon, A. Coulon, I. Quintin Roué, M.‐B. Delisle, D. Figarella‐Branger, A. Laquerrière, C. Miquel, J.‐F. Michiels, M. Péoch, M. Polivka, F. Fauchon and A. Jouvet (2012) Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology38, 87–94 Utility of Ki67 immunostaining in the grading of pineal parenchymal tumours: a multicentre study Aims: Pineal parenchymal tumours (PPTs) are rare neoplasms that are divided into pineocytoma (PC), pineoblastoma (PB) and PPT of intermediate differentiation (PPTID). Factors affecting the survival of patients with PPTs are morphological subtype and histological grading according to mitotic index and neurofilament immunostaining. Grading criteria to distinguish PPTIDs are difficult to define, particularly when using small specimens. The Ki67 labelling index (LI) might be helpful in distinguishing between grade II and III PPTIDs. Our study was performed to assess the predictive value of the Ki67 LI in a large cooperative series of PPTs and to evaluate whether inclusion of this data would improve and refine the World Health Organization classification. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 33 PPTs was performed. The histological features of the tumours were reviewed and Ki67 LI scoring was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Data were correlated with the patients' survival. Results: The mean Ki67 LI was significantly different for tumour grades (0 in PC, 5.2 ± 0.4 in PPTID grade II, 11.2 ± 2.0 in PPTID grade III, 36.4 ± 6.2 in PB; P < 0.0001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in either overall or disease‐free survival evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method for patients with different grade tumours or Ki67 LI, possibly due to the different clinical management of patients in different centres. Conclusions: The Ki67 LI may be a useful additional tool for grading PPTs, more particularly in small tumour samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropathology and Applied NeurobiologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207